hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 1,668 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 440 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 256 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 239 3 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 172 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 168 0 Browse Search
J. E. Johnston 166 0 Browse Search
P. G. T. Beauregard 158 6 Browse Search
Robert Anderson 136 6 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 124 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Search the whole document.

Found 264 total hits in 64 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
New England (United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
le of its authority being daily violated. The effect of the repeal was to permit the importation of negroes into South Carolina during the interval from 1803 to 1808. It is probable that an extensive contrabrand trade was carried on by the New England slavers with other ports, on account of the lack of means to enforce the laws of the Southern states forbidding it. Virginia was the first of all the states, North or South, to prohibit it, and Georgia was the first to incorporate such a prohi03, and the subsequent admission of a portion of that territory into the Union as a state, afforded one of the earliest occasions for the manifestation of sectional jealousy, and gave rise to the first threats or warnings (which proceeded from New England) of a dissolution of the Union. Yet, although negro slavery existed in Louisiana, no pretext was made of that as an objection to the acquisition. The ground of opposition is frankly stated in a letter of that period from one Massachusetts st
Indiana (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
December, 1805, a petition of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Indiana territory—then comprising all the area now occupied by the states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, annia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and New York, and the delegate from the Indiana territory. On the 14th of the ensuing February (1806), this committee made a report favorable to a qualified suspension of the article in question would be beneficial to the people of the Indiana territory, proceeded to say: The suspension of this article is an object almost universally desirn country might then indulge any preference which they might feel for a settlement in the Indiana Territory, instead of seeking, as they are now compelled to do, settlements in other States or countlly and unanimously adopted by the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Indiana territory, in favor of the suspension of the sixth article of the ordinance and the introduction of
Delaware (Delaware, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
votes on the proposed restriction, which eventually failed of adoption, and on the compromise, which was finally adopted, are often confounded. The advocacy of the former measure was exclusively sectional, no Southern member voting for it in either house. On the adoption of the compromise line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, the vote in the Senate was 34 yeas to 10 nays. The Senate consisted of forty-four members from twenty-two states, equally divided between the two sections—Delaware being classed as a Southern state. Among the yeas were all the Northern votes, except two from Indiana—being 20— and 14 Southern. The nays consisted of 2 from the North, and 8 from the South. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 134 yeas to 42 nays. Of the yeas, 95 were Northern, 39 Southern; of the nays, 5 Northern, and 37 Southern. Among the nays in the Senate were Messrs. James Barbour and James Pleasants of Virginia, Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, John Gaillard and<
California (California, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
ays in the Senate were Messrs. James Barbour and James Pleasants of Virginia, Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, John Gaillard and William Smith of South Carolina. In the House Philip P. Barbour, John Randolph, John Tyler, and William S. Archer of Virginia, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina (one of the authors of the Constitution), Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia, and others of more or less note. (See speech of the Hon. D. L. Yulee of Florida in the United States Senate, on the admission of California, August 6, 1850, for a careful and correct account of the compromise. That given in the second chapter of Benton's Thirty Years View is singularly inaccurate; that of Horace Greeley, in his American Conflict, still more so.) This brief retrospect may have sufficed to show that the question of the right or wrong of the institution of slavery was in no wise involved in the earlier sectional controversies. Nor was it otherwise in those of a later period, in which it was the lot of the a
Connecticut (Connecticut, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
of opposition to slavery in the abstract was introduced as an adjunct of sectional controversy. It was clearly shown in debate that such considerations were altogether irrelevant; that the number of existing slaves would not be affected by their removal from the older states to Missouri; and moreover, that the proposed restriction would be contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the Constitution. The true issue was well stated by the Hon. Samuel A. Foot, a representative from Connecticut, in an incidental reference to it in debate on another subject, a few weeks after the final settlement of the Missouri case. He said: The Missouri question did not involve the question of freedom or slavery, but merely whether slaves now in the country might be permitted to reside in the proposed new State; and whether Congress or Missouri possessed the power to decide. Notwithstanding all this the restriction was adopted, by a vote almost strictly sectional, in the House of Representati
Minnesota (Minnesota, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
bution, or dispersion, of slaves and the extension of slavery—two things altogether different, although so generally confounded—was early and clearly drawn under circumstances and in a connection which justify a fuller notice. Virginia, it is well known, in the year 1784, ceded to the United States—then united only by the original Articles of Confederation—her vast possessions northwest of the Ohio, from which the great states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota, have since been formed. In 1787—before the adoption of the federal Constitution—the celebrated ordinance for the government of this Northwestern Territory was adopted by the Congress, with the full consent, and indeed at the express instance, of Virginia. This ordinance included six definite Articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said Territory, which were to for ever remain unalterable unless by common consent. The sixth of these articles
Indiana (Indiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
d to the United States—then united only by the original Articles of Confederation—her vast possessions northwest of the Ohio, from which the great states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota, have since been formed. In 1787—before the adoption of the federal Constitution—the celebrated ordinance fmber, 1805, a petition of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Indiana territory—then comprising all the area now occupied by the states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin —was presented to Congress. It appears from the proceedings of the House of Representatives that several petitions of the sameenty-two states, equally divided between the two sections—Delaware being classed as a Southern state. Among the yeas were all the Northern votes, except two from Indiana—being 20— and 14 Southern. The nays consisted of 2 from the North, and 8 from the South. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 134 yeas to
Vermont (Vermont, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
United States from and after the first day of January, 1808. This act was passed with great unanimity. In the House of Representatives there were one hundred thirteen (113) yeas to five (5) nays; it is a significant fact, as showing the absence of any sectional division of sentiment at that period, that the five dissentients were divided as equally as possible between the two sections, two of them being from Northern and three from Southern states. One was from New Hampshire, one from Vermont, two from Virginia, and one from South Carolina.—Benton's Abridgment, Vol. III, p. 519. No division on the final vote in the Senate. The slave trade had thus been finally abolished some months before the birth of the author of these pages, and has never since had legal existence in any of the United States. The question of the maintenance or extinction of the system of negro servitude already existing in any state was one exclusively belonging to such state. It is obvious, therefo
Illinois (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
er notice. Virginia, it is well known, in the year 1784, ceded to the United States—then united only by the original Articles of Confederation—her vast possessions northwest of the Ohio, from which the great states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota, have since been formed. In 1787—before the adoption of the federal Constitution—the celebrated ordinance for the government of this Northwestern Territory was adopted by the Congress, with the full consent, anent of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. In December, 1805, a petition of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Indiana territory—then comprising all the area now occupied by the states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin —was presented to Congress. It appears from the proceedings of the House of Representatives that several petitions of the same purport from inhabitants of the territory, accompanied by a letter from William Henry H
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
ween the two sections—Delaware being classed as a Southern state. Among the yeas were all the Northern votes, except two from Indiana—being 20— and 14 Southern. The nays consisted of 2 from the North, and 8 from the South. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 134 yeas to 42 nays. Of the yeas, 95 were Northern, 39 Southern; of the nays, 5 Northern, and 37 Southern. Among the nays in the Senate were Messrs. James Barbour and James Pleasants of Virginia, Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, John Gaillard and William Smith of South Carolina. In the House Philip P. Barbour, John Randolph, John Tyler, and William S. Archer of Virginia, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina (one of the authors of the Constitution), Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia, and others of more or less note. (See speech of the Hon. D. L. Yulee of Florida in the United States Senate, on the admission of California, August 6, 1850, for a careful and correct account of the compromise. That given in the second ch<
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...